Rita Dunaway – WNDhttp://mobile.wnd.com
A Free Press For A Free People Since 1997Thu, 22 Feb 2018 04:53:37 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6The Constitution's own remedy for abusehttp://mobile.wnd.com/2018/02/the-constitutions-own-remedy-for-abuse/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/02/the-constitutions-own-remedy-for-abuse/#respondTue, 20 Feb 2018 00:03:10 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=4653830Across America this month, 43 of our 50 state legislatures are in session. Many of them will consider the Convention of States Project – a legislative resolution to convene with the other states pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, to propose constitutional amendments that would impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and set term limits for federal officials.

Over the past four years, 12 states (Georgia, Florida, Alaska, Alabama, Indiana, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, North Dakota, Missouri and Texas) have already passed this resolution. Article V requires 22 additional state legislatures to act before the meeting can convene.

If you want to be inspired – if you want to see “self-governance” in action – watch online as a legislative committee receives public comments about the Convention of States resolution. You will see rooms jam-packed with Americans from every walk of life, urging their state legislators to use their power to restore our republic.

They are farmers who want the Environmental Protection Agency out of their ponds and puddles. They are business owners who want relief from regulations so extensive that teams of attorneys scarcely understand them. They are veterans who feel betrayed as they watch their liberties eroded. They are parents who want control over education back in their own hands, where it belongs.

You will also see those who have been misguided by false, decades-old leftist propaganda, begging committee members to “protect the Constitution” by shunning the very process it establishes to check and balance federal power. They complain about the unsustainability of our nation’s present course, yet insist that we do nothing to change it, save what we’ve been doing all along. The irrationality of their position is lost in the depths of their sincerity.

They would do well to remember the words of Patrick Henry to the gentlemen of 1775 who hoped to appease a tyrannical king:

“[I]t is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? … I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”

The “past” of our federal government points plainly to a future America effectively divorced from her Constitution – unless we do something to change it.

Thoughtful conservatives who are alarmed by our nation’s trajectory have concluded that the Article V convention process – the Constitution’s solution – offers the only peaceful, effective way to get back on track. These include Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Allen West, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Michael Farris … and many others.

They are the Patrick Henrys of our time. They recognize the impotence of misplaced hopes. They know that institutions that have bent and twisted constitutional language to expand their own powers will never voluntarily bend it back to its original meaning. Only the Constitution’s amendment process can fortify the boundaries of the enumerated powers with precise, 21st century language that today’s judges, politicians and bureaucrats will not be able to evade.

Today’s federal officials can maintain that Congress’ power to tax and spend for “the general welfare” is an unbounded power. But this fiscal insanity would end abruptly with an amendment that requires taxation and spending to be tied directly to a specifically named constitutional power.

Not everyone has the stomach for the long, difficult road to state-proposed, state-ratified constitutional amendments. Some say it’s too hard. Others are paralyzed by fear that the process could turn out badly. This is nothing new.

According to historians, only 40 percent of the colonists were patriots who supported the American Revolution. Around 15 percent remained loyal to Britain, and the rest just tried to stay out of it.

As an Idaho representative recently stated, today’s Article V opponents would not have been numbered among the patriots, because their motivation is fear, worry and doubt. These motivations cannot sustain a republic; they are the fuel of tyranny.

]]>http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/02/the-constitutions-own-remedy-for-abuse/feed/0Rights of conscience trump sexual 'rights'http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/02/rights-of-conscience-trump-sexual-rights/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/02/rights-of-conscience-trump-sexual-rights/#respondTue, 13 Feb 2018 00:17:11 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=4651985Way back in 1965, the Supreme Court parroted Harlan Fiske Stone’s observation that “All our history gives confirmation to the view that liberty of conscience has a moral and social value which makes it worthy of preservation at the hands of the state.” Our society today would do well to remember this.

In light of the prominent place religious liberty commands – not only in our nation’s history, but in our Constitution’s text (it’s the first freedom protected in the Bill of Rights) – one might assume that rights of conscience would always prevail against rights or interests not recognized in the Constitution. But despite the fact that the highest law of our land protects individual religious liberty in black and white, while saying nothing about what some have referred to as “sexual liberty,” some today consider individuals’ sexual “rights,” announced by courts or created by ordinary legislation, to warrant a higher level of protection than rights of conscience.

For instance, Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner Chai Feldblum once stated in an interview that in cases of conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Tragically, what we see in EEOC and court rulings across the country today is that Feldblum’s view is widely shared. Courts have subjected florists and photographers to outrageous penalties and fines for their refusals to provide services at odds with their sincerely held religious beliefs. A baker by the name of Jack Phillips now awaits what promises to be a landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court on the question of whether the state may lawfully compel him to bake a cake to celebrate a marriage that his conscience forbids him to celebrate.

In this context, it is refreshing to see that the Trump administration is doing its part to reinvigorate protection for rights of conscience in an area where they have long been under fire – the health-care world. Because these battles happen behind partitions and privacy screens rather than in Main Street shops, they don’t tend to attract the same public notice. But the subtle oppression of health-care providers as they seek to practice their professions with clear consciences is a shockingly real and common phenomenon.

In 2010, Nassau University Medical Center disciplined eight nurses for raising objections to assisting in abortions. Twelve nurses in New Jersey alleged that their hospital required them to assist in abortions and disciplined a nurse who raised a conscientious objection to the practice.

In a 2009 survey, 39 percent of members of faith-based medical associations reported being subjected to pressure or discrimination from administrators or faculty based on their moral, ethical or religious beliefs. Around 20 percent of medical students indicated that they would not pursue a career in obstetrics/gynecology because of their concerns about facing discrimination and coercion to violate their religious beliefs.

Their concerns are well-founded. In 2016, the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecologists reaffirmed a prior ethics opinion, stating, “In an emergency in which referral is not possible or might negatively affect a patient’s physical or mental health, providers have an obligation to provide medically indicated and requested care regardless of the provider’s personal moral objections.”

Enter the Trump administration. Late last month, the federal Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights announced a new proposed rule to enforce 25 existing statutory conscience protections for individuals involved in federally funded programs. The rule would protect Americans from being coerced to participate in activities that violate their consciences, such as abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide.

If you’re wondering why it is necessary to enact a new rule to enforce protections already written into the law (just as you might have wondered why we need laws to enforce protections already written into the Constitution), it’s because the old rules issued under President Obama’s administration created confusion over the extent of conscience protections and lacked effective enforcement mechanisms.

As we all know, “the devil is in the details.” In the world of administrative law, this means that, as a practical matter, an administration’s specific directives as to how the law should be interpreted and executed will usually trump the common-sense meaning and spirit of the law.

I applaud HHS for having the backs of Americans who seek to live out their faith and obey their consciences, and I hope the proposal will be adopted. If you care about this issue, tell officials so by submitting comments before March 27.

]]>http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/02/rights-of-conscience-trump-sexual-rights/feed/0Medicaid work requirement harmful?http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/02/medicaid-work-requirement-harmful/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/02/medicaid-work-requirement-harmful/#respondTue, 06 Feb 2018 00:50:29 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=4650486Thanks to new policy guidance issued by the Trump administration, states can now require able-bodied recipients of taxpayer-funded health care to engage in some type of productive activity. One would think that the only troubling aspect of this is that any policy change was necessary to allow such a common-sense policy. Sadly, however, the ink was barely dry before the opposition tirades began.

An editorial in the Washington Post, for instance, referred to the move as “A solution in search of a problem.” After all, the Post pointed out, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 60 percent of non-disabled Medicaid recipients already work. (The average, hard-working American may well be wondering why the other 40 percent of this non-disabled population – 4 out of 10 – are not working, but rather living off the backs of others who do. The Post apparently does not suffer from such curiosity.)

Work requirements are evidence-based. The guidance issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cites multiple studies demonstrating that unemployment is harmful to one’s physical and mental health, and that working tends to decrease depression. But even science cannot pacify liberal activists who are convinced that sinister motives lurk behind efforts to help the poor lift themselves to success. Thus Brad Woodhouse, director of “Protect our Care Campaign,” called the work requirement “not just a shift in policy, but a shift in the fundamental decency of the United States.”

One wonders whether he has actually read the CMS Guidance, which includes not only the sturdy rationale for activating human potential through work requirements, but also an expansive list of factors states should consider in creating exemptions from the requirement. These include age, caregiving, or participation in a drug or alcohol treatment program. The guidance also urges states to consider a variety of activities to meet work requirement, including volunteer programs.

The Post complains, nevertheless, that the requirement is “superfluous” and “harmful.” It offers no evidence to support the latter contention. And even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that work requirements will, in fact, be “superfluous” because every non-disabled, non-working Medicaid recipient is already engaged in productive activity that would meet the requirement or exempt her from it, there is still an excellent reason for codifying it: to ensure that our public policy recognizes the role of work in human flourishing.

Work not only improves the human condition, it is good for the human spirit. The misguided rush to shield able-bodied Americans from work that allows them to earn their own living, care for their own families or serve their communities may masquerade as some sick kind of “compassion,” but is really nothing less than what President George W. Bush described as “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” It insults the dignity of an able-bodied human being to suggest that the world should expect no contribution from him – not even enough to provide for his own needs.

I have a friend who once taught in an impoverished, rural community. She recalls a time when she asked an elementary school student what he wanted to be when he grew up. He looked at her blankly, so she explained, “for a job – what do you want your job to be?” And he responded, “I’m not going to have a job. I’m just going to get my check.” She realized that he had never seen his parents hold a job; he had only seen them receive “assistance” from the unseen hand of government.

That, my dear readers, is a tragedy. I hope and pray that this child and others like him will have caring adults like my friend in their lives to raise a high and healthy bar of expectation for them that will drive them to make use of every ounce of their potential.

We live in a time and place where an encouraged and determined child faces few barriers to educational and economic achievement. Even so, let’s remember that one need not be a physicist, doctor, or engineer to contribute. The delivery person with a spring in his step; the fast-food server with a smile on her face; the soup kitchen volunteer; the single mom teaching her toddler the alphabet – each one makes a distinct and valuable contribution to society that should never be dismissed or overlooked.

Contributions like these should be valued and encouraged. To advocate instead for leaving the poor in a lifetime of idleness, poverty and dependence, is profoundly uncharitable.

]]>http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/02/medicaid-work-requirement-harmful/feed/0Constitution: A relic or effective owner's manual?http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/constitution-a-relic-or-effective-owners-manual/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/constitution-a-relic-or-effective-owners-manual/#respondTue, 30 Jan 2018 00:09:16 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=4648808Americans have been hearing about the looming debt crisis for so long that some now dread it only in the sense that they dread collision of our planet with a giant asteroid. It may be a legitimate cause for concern, but it hasn’t happened yet, and we’re not sure there is anything we can do to prevent it.

Author and commentator George Will is one of them. In a column earlier this month, Will urged Congress to propose a constitutional amendment, pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, that would require a balanced federal budget.

Will rightly laments the immorality of financing today’s government programs on the backs of future generations of Americans. But the solution he proposes suffers from two flaws. It underestimates the depth of the problem and overestimates the willingness of Congress to resolve it.

First of all, members of Congress and the bureaucrats they control benefit more than anyone from the spending status quo. They are unlikely to propose a balanced budget amendment for the same reason that they are unlikely to ever choose to significantly cut federal spending – because spending for programs that people like helps them win the next election.

In other words, Congress isn’t keen on restraining its own power.

Now this political reality doesn’t make Will’s balanced budget amendment an impossibility; it merely requires the states to use the alternative means Article V provides for them to meet and propose the needed amendments.

Those who have suggested that Article V’s “convention for proposing amendments” poses some mortal danger to our Constitution need to be reminded that at any such gathering, the state delegations have precisely the same power Congress has every day it sits in session – the power merely to propose amendments. Adding amendments to the Constitution, whether proposed by Congress or by the states, always requires ratification by three-fourths of the states.

But now we come to the second, larger flaw in Will’s proposal. A balanced budget amendment is simply not enough.

Will himself concedes that Congress could evade the requirement through “creative bookkeeping” or “stealthy spending through unfunded mandates on state governments and the private sector.” But my strongest objection to a balanced budget amendment is not a matter of unintended consequences; it’s a matter of principle. A balanced budget amendment would do nothing to correct the fundamental dysfunction of our federal government: the unrestrained, illegitimate expansion of federal power.

Col. George Mason’s concern that Washington would only ever expand upon its enumerated powers was precisely the reason he insisted, at the Constitutional Convention, that Congress not be the sole keeper of the power to propose amendments. And yet, the states have thus far failed to implement the alternative mechanism, vested in them, to prune federal overgrowth through the amendment process.

State-proposed constitutional amendments could explicitly reject the “interpretations” of our Constitution that have allowed Washington to usurp the role of the states. They could address the debt crisis by eliminating Congress’ power to spend on programs that it has no business operating in the first place. It’s time for the states to act to preserve the integrity of our constitutional republic.

George Will believes that “reverence for the Constitution is imperiled by tinkering with it,” and I agree that we must exercise prudence in seeking to amend it. But we must ask ourselves: Do we want a Constitution that is revered as a historical artifact, or do we want it to be revered because, after more than two centuries, it still effectively restrains the ambitions of those who sit in power in our nation’s Capital?

I believe there are plenty of Americans, still, who are not ready to abandon the grand experiment in self-governance set in motion by our Constitution. Our loyalty to that Constitution – not as a pristine parchment, but as a functioning operator’s manual – demands that we resolve systemic dysfunctions through textual amendments that clarify what has been distorted through legislative and executive exuberance and judicial activism. It demands that we recalibrate the balance of power.

So yes, we do need constitutional amendments to address our most fundamental civic crises. But despite what some may think, the biggest problem isn’t that the feds are spending money they don’t have; the biggest problem is that they are using power we never gave them. It’s time for our states to return that power to us.

]]>http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/constitution-a-relic-or-effective-owners-manual/feed/0The 2 legal fictions in Roe decisionhttp://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/the-2-legal-fictions-in-roe-decision/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/the-2-legal-fictions-in-roe-decision/#respondTue, 23 Jan 2018 00:22:49 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=4647238Every year, on Jan. 22, we are reminded of what can happen when the rule of man prevails over the rule of law. On this date in 1973, seven men made a factually, legally and morally flawed decision that has resulted in the deaths of more than 60 million innocent lives, to date. They declared that our Constitution, constructed on the premise that government exists to protect the lives of its citizens, requires every state to permit the deadly practice of abortion.

In order to reach this conclusion, the seven men who constituted the majority of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade had to perpetuate not one, but two legal fictions.

The first is one that has dogged America since its founding: the fiction that not all human beings are “persons” entitled to legal protection.

One might have thought that our judiciary had learned its lesson about the injustice of refusing to treat all human beings as “persons” after the repugnant and rightfully renounced decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford. That was the decision, you may recall, in which the Court determined that a slave, despite his obvious humanness, was not a “person” in the eyes of the law. But sadly, the lesson has not yet been learned.

In Roe v. Wade, Texas argued that the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the “right to life” to every “person,” justified its laws protecting human life inside the womb. The argument thus hinged on the proposition that life begins at conception, and that a pre-born baby is therefore a human being entitled to the rights of a “person.”

In a surprise maneuver, the Supreme Court claimed it was incompetent to rule on when life begins. (Of course, this was pure bunk. Science tells us, without equivocation, that a unique organism exists at conception, complete with DNA that is distinct from the mother and father. This new organism is indisputably human and indisputably living.)

Even more oddly, however, than its dismissal of this pivotal scientific evidence, was the Court’s conclusion that determining when life begins was totally unnecessary to determining whether a baby in the womb had a constitutionally protected right to life.

The Court said that because there was no obvious indication that the Constitution was meant to apply to babies before birth, it surely did not. And yet, the Court ironically staked its ultimate decision – mandating legal abortion in every state – upon its conclusion that women’s “right to privacy,” mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, encompasses a right to abortion.

This is the second legal fiction of Roe v. Wade. This type of “right to privacy” is the Supreme Court’s own invention, dating from 1965. And because the Court made it up, only the Court can decide what it means or how it precludes government from fulfilling its most basic duty to protect human life.

The majority ultimately concluded that its task was to balance the woman’s right of privacy against the state’s interest in protecting “potential life.” That “potential life,” it concluded, had no rights of his own to be considered.

Sixty million dead babies later, we can see how this “balancing” worked out.

In a nutshell, the ruling of Roe v. Wade is the product of seven Supreme Court justices deciding that a right smudged into the Constitution by judges (the “right of privacy”) outweighed the duty and prerogative of states to protect what science proves to be living human beings. By divorcing (again) the legal concept of “person” from the scientific concept of “human life,” the Court deprived defenseless human beings of a right that is explicitly protected in the Constitution, in order to strengthen a “right” of more powerful human beings that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

It is past time for the Supreme Court to reverse this indefensible ruling.

Justice requires laws that recognize and protect the fundamental rights of every human being, regardless of race, age, or conditions of dependency. The failure to marry the concepts of life and personhood enabled previous generations to ignore the human rights of slaves; it enables our generation to exterminate pre-born human beings.

Justice also requires a restrained judiciary that respects the rule of law. The Constitution does not protect every behavior some might like it to protect. It does provide a process through which we, the people, can amend the text to incorporate new rights or expound existing ones. It gives no quarter, however, to judges who would usurp this prerogative for themselves, and make informal amendments through the guise of “interpretation.”

]]>http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/the-2-legal-fictions-in-roe-decision/feed/0President Potty-mouth doesn't speak for mehttp://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/president-potty-mouth-doesnt-speak-for-me/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/president-potty-mouth-doesnt-speak-for-me/#respondTue, 16 Jan 2018 00:18:45 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=4645595President Trump was not speaking for America’s true conservatives when he made his repulsive, potty-mouthed comment about immigrants from El Salvador, Haiti and certain African nations. He certainly was not speaking for me.

The understanding that “all men are created equal” is not only a core tenet of conservatism, but a conviction that is foundational to the America we love. It is not the country of one’s origin, the color of one’s skin, or the material resources of one’s family that determine one’s value as a person, or one’s potential for contributing to society in tangible or intangible ways. Rather, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. instructed us, it is the “content of one’s character” that counts.

Real conservatives are committed to this conviction. We believe that every human life is precious and carries incredible potential. We reject the notion that someone born in Haiti is less deserving of the opportunity to become an American than someone born in Norway for the same reason we reject the notion that students of certain races require “affirmative action” programs in order to compete with other students for college admission.

The strength of character that drives educational and economic achievement, refines talents and fuels ingenuity is not a trait tied to a few particular races, nationalities or ethnicities. It is a human trait that has emerged around the globe, since the dawn of time, and is often born out of the very soil of struggle, hardship and persecution President Trump seems to consider a disqualification for success.

Lady Liberty understands something President Trump apparently does not: that the lamp of freedom and opportunity sheds a transformative light upon every human spirit that is unspoiled by the yoke of government dependence. She understands that no matter one’s national origin or economic background, every person who immigrates to America with a thirst for freedom and a willingness to work for his own success is like unrefined gold that enriches our nation. Indeed, such is the stuff that stacked up to become the most powerful country in the world.

Sometime in 2016, I noticed a particular yard sign popping up around my town. It consisted of three color blocks, with the same message printed in English, Spanish, and Arabic: “No matter where you are from, we’re glad you’re our neighbor.”

While I know that for many who displayed it during the presidential campaign season, the sign was meant to communicate a political message more complex and nuanced than what the simple words expressed, the spirit it conveys is one that real conservatives embrace just as wholeheartedly as liberals. It’s a message of kindness, hospitality and the willingness to bridge cultural divides. It’s about the understanding that every person who ever walked the earth has the potential to contribute in unique, meaningful ways to our community, our state, and our nation.

I cringe, now, to consider how Trump’s statement is seen to validate the perception that the right is “anti-immigrant”; at how many Americans have mistaken Trump’s statement to be the position of conservatives. And so I repeat: He wasn’t speaking for me.

As Trump continues to exacerbate the strident divisiveness that plagues our beloved nation today, I believe the way forward is to renew our collective commitment to “E Pluribus Unum,” or “out of many, one.”

This doesn’t mean that immigrants should be expected to shed their cultural heritage at the border or abandon the traditions and languages that link them to that heritage. What it means is that the immigrant and native-born American alike, the rich and the poor, must choose to embrace the values of America: Equality before God. Individual liberty. Limited government. The rule of law. Disciplined self-governance. The opportunity to raise one’s place in society through industry and hard work.

These are the civic values that make America tick. Those of us privileged to be Americans already – and especially our president – need to take a step back and make sure WE are consistently embracing these values in our attitudes, words and actions.

]]>http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/president-potty-mouth-doesnt-speak-for-me/feed/0The most basic act of self-governancehttp://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/the-most-basic-act-of-self-governance/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/the-most-basic-act-of-self-governance/#respondTue, 09 Jan 2018 00:23:15 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=4643852In the nation of the most-celebrated government on earth, in the state George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison called home, control of the people’s lawmaking body was determined last week by lottery.

This is the news from the Commonwealth of Virginia, where last November the GOP watched its 66-34 majority in the House of Delegates shrink to a 51-49 majority after the apparent election results came in. But when a subsequent recount of votes in the 94th legislative district indicated that Democrat challenger Shelly Simonds had actually beaten Republican incumbent David Yancey by a single vote, the GOP’s one-vote margin dissolved. What materialized in its place was the messy, horrific prospect of an evenly split House.

But the story was far from over.

The day after that fateful recount, a three-judge panel ruled that one ballot, which had been declared “ineligible” during the recount process, should actually have been counted for Yancey. This ruling officially rendered the race a tie, with each candidate having received exactly 11,608 votes. Simonds was unsuccessful in appealing this ruling.

And so, in a bizarre ceremony prominently featuring a decorative blue bowl (and a contrived public nod to the arts), the Virginia Board of Elections held a drawing to determine which candidate would represent the people of Virginia’s 94th legislative district.

Using games of chance to determine the winner of a tied election is not unprecedented. The stakes, however, made this situation remarkable; the outcome of this particular lottery determined the very balance of power in Virginia’s House of Delegates.

Because Yancey’s name was drawn, the Republicans will retain a majority in the House for now – but only by a single vote. If Simonds’ name had been drawn, however, the House would have been evenly split, thus necessitating some sort of awkward power-sharing arrangement between Republicans and Democrats, and virtually ensuring that nothing of any consequence would be accomplished for the next two years.

With a Democrat governor holding veto power, a Senate held by 21 Republicans and 19 Democrats (and a Democrat lieutenant governor wielding the tie-breaking vote), the situation gives new meaning to the concept of “divided government.”

But a state legislature divided to the point of gridlock isn’t the real tragedy in our great constitutional republic. The real tragedy is that as of the 2010 census, there were 79,429 people living in Virginia’s 94th legislative district, and less than one-third of them voted for someone to represent them in the halls of their state legislature.

Ironically, pollsters and pundits celebrated this particular election for yielding the highest voter turnout in two decades for a Virginia governor’s race. But the truth is, even this “landmark” statewide turnout rate, at 47 percent, represents an abysmal failure of “we, the people,” to fulfill our civic duties.

I know, I know. We’ve all been hearing about shockingly low voter turnout rates in the U.S. for decades. So we work hard to get friends and neighbors to the polls. We try to convince them that their vote really matters. But have we ever helped citizens understand why their vote matters, or explained the multitude of implications of low voter turnout?

We can’t deny that some people live in districts where their votes will matter less than others’ in terms of an election’s outcome. But in a more transcendental sense, it can truly be said that every vote, everywhere really does matter – because a vote is more than just weight added to a pile.

A vote represents a civic duty fulfilled, a legacy honored and a hope manifested. It is the hope that the inclination and energy of a people to resist tyranny and to govern themselves will persist through this and future generations.

On the other hand, low voter turnout sends a foreboding message to our own government officials and to the rest of the world. It signals that we are no longer the audacious, liberty-loving self-starters who once insisted upon governing ourselves. It paints an embarrassing picture of a bunch of spoiled, lazy whiners who are quick to complain, quick to unleash their litany of government grievances upon anyone who will listen, but utterly unwilling to perform even the most basic, simple act of self-governance: the act of making a mark on paper.

For all future elections, let’s put away expensive recounts, judicial panels, ceramic bowls and tie-breaking ceremonies. Let’s stir up the old spirit of dogged commitment to self-governance that can render them obsolete.

]]>http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/the-most-basic-act-of-self-governance/feed/05 resolutions for Americahttp://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/5-resolutions-for-america/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/5-resolutions-for-america/#respondMon, 01 Jan 2018 23:52:47 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=4642278Some people scoff at the idea of “New Year’s Resolutions.” They say it’s silly to wait until one particular day to start journaling, or they point out that the most resolute New Year’s treadmill-users find themselves hanging clothes on the equipment by Valentine’s Day. They may be right.

So I propose to America a new type of New Year’s Resolution-making. I propose that we use this first week of a brand-new year to take stock of where we are as a nation and as a culture. I propose that we consider how each of us, individually, and all of us, collectively, along with our social and governmental institutions, can press closer toward virtue.

If a nation can make New Year’s Resolutions, here are five I submit for America:

Let’s reunite, as a people, under foundational values the vast majority of us still share.As 2018 dawns, there is so much to disagree about. Politicians and their parties often home in on our sharpest, least reconcilable differences, in the interest of providing voters with a clear choice at the ballot box – or demonizing their opponents. The media thrive on strife, controversy, and scandal.

But I believe there is much common ground to be found among Americans of every political, ethnic and religious stripe. We all want to build a better future for our children. We all believe that every person is endowed with the basic freedom to pursue his or her own life goals and to be free from government-imposed obstacles while doing so. The vast majority of us celebrate industry and creativity and recognize that they are the key to economic success.

These are just a few of the virtually universal values that once made America strong and can unite us and strengthen us again. We should use them, whenever possible, as a stepping-off point for working together to tackle the challenges that confront us.

Let’s reaffirm our national commitment to religious liberty.A robust commitment to religious freedom was once one of those values that united us, and we should strive to get back there again. I believe this is possible, because when we take the time to really understand the vision for religious liberty cast in the Bill of Rights, we come to understand that it benefits everyone and is consistent with both conservative and liberal ideologies.

The touchstone of liberty is freedom from coercion and compulsion. So if Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop can be coerced to bake a cake that celebrates an act his faith condemns, he cannot be said to enjoy religious liberty. The Supreme Court should rule accordingly when it issues its decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and ensure that America remains a beacon of freedom for generations to come.

Let’s restore a culture that upholds high standards of decency.The repeated revelations of sexual harassment and abuse that littered 2017 are proof positive that living in an anything-goes, sex-saturated culture doesn’t make us more “free” or enlightened—it makes us barbaric and dirty. It emboldens the powerful sex-obsessed and creates victims of the women who must interact with them in the workplace. By desensitizing our children to sex, it also conditions them to become part of this self-perpetuating cycle.

We’ve figured out that smoking is toxic. Haven’t we also finally figured out that when sex is everywhere we look or listen – sex without boundaries – it becomes toxic to our culture?

Let’s use our state governments to check the power of Washington.We all know that our federal government has become a monster. For way too long, no matter which party is in control, it has been gobbling up our money, our freedom … and our will to do anything about it. But there is something we can do. We can unite our state legislatures to use their power under Article V of the Constitution to meet and propose much-needed constitutional reforms that will restore the proper balance of power between Washington and the states. (Visit www.conventionofstates.com to learn more).

Let’s pray for a spiritual awakening.We live in frightening, frustrating times. It’s all too easy to heed the temptation to simply put our heads down and work toward our own personal comfort and pleasure. Let’s pray that our Creator – the one who endowed each of us with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – will rekindle in us all an appreciation of Beauty, a love of Truth and a commitment to Goodness.

]]>http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/5-resolutions-for-america/feed/0Christmas: Hope fulfilled for us sinnershttp://mobile.wnd.com/2017/12/christmas-hope-fulfilled-for-us-sinners/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/12/christmas-hope-fulfilled-for-us-sinners/#respondMon, 25 Dec 2017 22:27:50 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=4640827Because Jesus Christ was born in a stable over 2,000 years ago, there is hope for each one of us – no matter how failed, flawed, or frustrated we may be. Jesus is the embodiment of a Creator so caring and compassionate that He condescended into the hot mess of humankind so that we could know Him and be reconciled to Him.

Jesus told us that it is through Him, the Son, that we can know God, the Father. By studying the life of Christ depicted in the four gospels, we see that God is the very essence of kindness. Not only did Jesus heal the sick, raise the dead and feed the hungry, but he dined with social outcasts – at the expense of his reputation – and welcomed children into his presence. He delivered grace and mercy to those who needed it most.

On the other hand, Jesus reserved his harshest words for the self-righteous. He called out the sanctimonious “religious” sticklers who were hung up on outward keeping of ceremonial laws but were lacking in love and kindness, naming them “whitewashed tombs” whose hearts were far from God.

At the same time, Jesus was relentless in upholding Truth and the Moral Law. Yes, he challenged the adulterous woman’s accusers to “cast the first stone” if they were without sin, but having exposed the crowd’s hypocrisy and double standards, he then gently commanded the woman to go and “sin no more.” Jesus never gave sin a “pass,” but he was utterly gracious toward those who recognized their sin-sickness and desired to turn from it.

He also showed us that God is utterly sovereign over His world. He calmed storms. He healed the sick and raised the dead. As he hung on the cross, daylight turned into night.

From his resurrection, we learn that even the most tragic event we could imagine – the crucifixion of Christ – was never out of God’s control. It was all part of His perfect plan, from before the beginning of time, to redeem a people who would glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.

God is the essence of all that we recognize as good. Through the birth of Jesus, He demonstrated love so perfect and so complete that it willingly makes the ultimate sacrifice.

As the lyrics of the lovely Downhere song ask, “How many kings step down from their thrones? How many lords have abandoned their homes? How many greats have become the least for me?”

And who ever heard of a father volunteering his perfect, faultless son to pay the death penalty in place of vile thugs, even as they waved their angry fists in his face? Yet this is what God has done for us through Jesus.

This is love profound, and it is the kind of sacrificial love that has resonated with every nation, people, tribe and tongue the world over, since the dawn of time. It resonates because, as Blaise Pascal observed, each of us was created with a God-shaped vacuum in the center of us.

This vacuum is the reason we search for meaning in life. It is why we work hard to be “good people” and to conform to some code of moral standards.

Our reality, however, is that even the best among us is not consistently “good,” according to God’s standards. The beauty of genuine Christianity is that it looks this reality in the face and doesn’t flinch.

It never requires us to deny what we know to be true about our condition or pretend we are something other than what we really are – people who are inconsistent, at best, in living up to our own paltry standards, much less fulfilling those of a perfectly holy God. If God requires our own performance to “measure up,” then we would be utterly helpless and hopeless.

But the great joy of Christmas is that the Creator of the world has seen our deepest need – it’s the need for a substitute to resolve our sin problem so that we can have peace with the One who made us and who upholds a perfect, unchanging Moral Law. Then He, himself, met this need, by sending the baby who was born in that stable over 2,000 years ago.

For those who see this and believe, those who turn from their own feeble efforts to be “good,” and place their trust in Christ instead, He is hope fulfilled.

]]>http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/12/christmas-hope-fulfilled-for-us-sinners/feed/05 tips for improving public discoursehttp://mobile.wnd.com/2017/12/5-tips-for-improving-public-discourse/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/12/5-tips-for-improving-public-discourse/#respondTue, 19 Dec 2017 00:13:07 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=4639199One of the best things about the Christmas season is the way it seems to soften our rough edges. Most of us tend to be a little less demanding, a little more generous and a little less focused on ourselves this time of year.

What would it be like if we could carry this advent season attitude adjustment into our public discourse – and make it permanent? Here are my prescriptions for elevating our discussions about politics and public policy. (Hey, media: I’m talking to you, too!)

Don’t assume the worst about those who disagree with you. We have such a bad habit of demonizing people because they disagree with us about issues. Christians who hold to Scripture’s teachings on gender, marriage and the family are referred to as “bigots” or “haters.” I know there are plenty of truly bigoted, hateful people out there, but it is simply wrong to make this assumption about everyone who has opted out of our culture’s redefining of these fundamental concepts.For another example, listen to how the left talks about conservatives who object to expanding big government programs designed to alleviate poverty and other societal problems. Liberals assume that anyone who opposes the Affordable Care Act or Medicaid expansion is cold-hearted or selfish. But the reality is that while conservatives oppose the big government programs, our demographic is also the most highly engaged in all forms of private, personal charity.

Be gracious to others in their failures. Let’s face it: we all have moral failures. Yes, some are more significant than others, and carry more serious consequences. But as a culture, we are unbecomingly cruel and unforgiving when our public figures’ failings are exposed.Of course they should be held accountable for their wrongdoing just like everyone else. But when they are willing to acknowledge and turn from the offensive behavior, we should show them the same warmth of forgiveness and grace that we all hope to receive for ourselves and our loved ones.

Accept that people grow and change. Rejoice in it. It is an unfortunate characteristic of our body politic that we tend to tag anyone who changes his or her position on an issue as a flip-flopper – or assume that the alleged “change” is really just political posturing.This tendency fails to account for the fact that it really is possible for us, as human beings, to grow, mature and even completely reverse our thinking, particularly on public policy issues. This capability is a good thing. We should welcome it; not ridicule it.

Acknowledge the good in others, and don’t mischaracterize their positions. Too often we seem to assume that if we acknowledge the noble intentions of our political opponents or the merit in their ideas, we’ll somehow betray our own position. This leads to an ugly, polarized and fruitless kind of public discourse.Is it really impossible for the left to identify a single positive action or idea from the Trump administration? And as for the right, let’s acknowledge that there are good, kind intentions behind the left’s push to provide health care and other goods and services for the poor – even if we completely disagree on who should provide these goods and services or how.In the same vein, let’s resist the urge to mischaracterize our political opponents’ positions – to create straw man arguments that are easy for us to knock down. Take, for instance, the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Those who would force baker Jack Phillips to craft a cake for a wedding that violates his religious beliefs describe the case as being about Jack’s “denial of service” to the gay couple. But in fact, Jack was willing to serve them anything from his shop but a custom-made wedding cake.

Let’s be honest about what’s really at issue.

Treat others the way you want to be treated. This one really sums up all of the others. As we learned from the person whose birthday we celebrate this season, if we endeavor to love God with all of our heart, soul and mind, and to love our neighbors the way we love ourselves, we will be living the way our Creator designed us to live.What we all need to remember is that “loving our neighbor as ourselves” isn’t an idea meant to be confined to the privacy of our homes, churches and circles of friends. It’s the rule that should govern our behavior in the public square as well.